It all depends on groups. As with all species, our goal is to live and continue our kind. In the animal kingdom, you may ally with other species like how various herbivores often migrate in numbers, or you may fight against and kill your own species as lions do to continue their own lineage. In this way, humans are the same but even more complex. We form multiple groups that we ally with like family, religion, country, etc. When groups contrast, we ally with the one who we feel we need more for survival. If we look at wrong and right, which is which depends on if your in their group or outside. Example: Killing. Should that person be killed? If that person threatens your group, yes. If that person defends your group. No. In war, both side feel it's right to kill the other. Look at religion. Tho the commandments say not to kill, later it tells you who should be killed. This is pretty much the same for all mankind among all morals. If the person or group is needed for survival, the moral law should stand. If that person person or group threatens your, or your groups, survival, the opposing moral should stand.

To some degree everyone disagrees at least slightly with the rest of the worlds standards. It may sound cliché, but every human is unique and set apart from the rest as an individual. Wrongdoing, however, is universally always wrongdoing. We may disagree on minor issues like lying under certain situations, but that is not because we deem it alright naturally; it is because our personal desires and/or beliefs overpower our sense of right and wrong. Notice, this is RARELY the case for major wrongs like murder for instance.

Yes but our justifications and facts differ

The average person meaning without mental impairment, has an understanding of moral absolutes. The only differences arises from our justifications on whats moral.

For instance, a relativist may say that morals aren't absolute due to cultures with differing moral constructs like capital punishment, female genital mutilation, or views on drugs. But with these morals are similar justifications just different knowledge regarding the topics, if we all had different perceptions of right and wrong then swaying public policy through the use of facts would be useless because they wouldn't be effective. But since a persons morals can be swayed due to facts I propose its simply our limited knowledge which causes the variation in what we consider good or bad and the only reason we perceive anything bad is due to moral absolutes.

Two examples of these moral absolutes would be 1. Equals should be treated equal-while someone may point to a racist as proof against this absolute, the racist doesn't believe the other race to be his equal due to ignorance, so that counter assertion doesn't work.

2.Hurting an innocent human is immoral- while someone may point to sociopaths or psychopaths to refute this, both posses mental illnesses. -pointing to torture or cultures which embrace sacrifice doesn't apply here because civilzations believed the person subjected to torture or sacrifice to be guilty or sufficiently forced to commit said immoral act.

All so desperate to be different...

Most of the other side are saying things like:'Everyone is different''We all have a different kind of nature''Dictators kill people'

Firstly, the fact that Dictators did not know what they were doing was 'wrong' or evil is ridiculous. Of course they knew, everyone has the same knowledge of their own vulnerability on planet earth and this the terrifying price of consciousness. There is also an assumed social consciousness which means that over time we learn how to interact with others etc. However, just because we know what is wrong and right it in no way means that we have to act on that. Do you seriously believe that Hitler or Mao or Stalin were unaware what they were doing was wrong? Of course they did, Hitler took great pleasure torturing prisoners because he had felt previously wronged by them, his answer was to purposefully do something wrong to them.

Socially no, biologically possibly yes

Coming from a medical perspective we have seen time and time again that those who commit the acts on a general basis that we deem "wrong" have proven to be mentally ill or have let it consume them which is arguably unhealthy. When something interferes with our life to a detracting point, or one that impedes society we can all agree it is "wrong". So in an abstract, loosely defined theoretical blah blah---yes. Disregarding specifics and taking the values of health and society (even with cultural differences, every society had its own structure) we can on a certain level see there is a basic foundation for right and wrong, cultivated in different ways amongst different people.

I am really sickened by the debate topics I see on here

And then I open them up and the ratio for what is true and right is always way off and most of the people on the wrong side are bots with names like "U14688746" "W18934646" and so forth. Obviously what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong, even serial killers when gutting someone send brain signals knowing they're wrong, and that's why they enjoy it.

What’s right is right what’s wrong is wrong

I think everyone had the same idea of what’s right and whats wrong. It’s simple really. We know certain things are right and certain things are wrong. For example we know murder is wrong and stealing is wrong. We also know that being kind is right and helping others is right.

Socially no, biologically possibly yes

Coming from a medical perspective we have seen time and time again that those who commit the acts on a general basis that we deem "wrong" have proven to be mentally ill or have let it consume them which is arguably unhealthy. When something interferes with our life to a detracting point, or one that impedes society we can all agree it is "wrong". So in an abstract, loosely defined theoretical blah blah---yes. Disregarding specifics and taking the values of health and society (even with cultural differences, every society had its own structure) we can on a certain level see there is a basic foundation for right and wrong, cultivated in different ways amongst different people.

Application of right and wrong.

While it is very simple to say we as individuals may view certain things either right or wrong, the idea supporting how we carry out action, in relation to said scenario, is almost always the same,

All individuals believe what is right should be carried out, and what is wrong should be avoided. There s sort of a classification error with the problem because it is inevitable that what we do is only ever considered right or wrong after the fact.

Reluctancy regarding your past decisions is the characteristic of wrong, and vice-verse.

Put simply, right and wrong are regarding the acts, not pre-concieved notions of actions that are either right or wrong.

Dictators probably fell they are doing good by killing people, and for a modern example, the Vulture from Spider-Man: Homecoming probably thought he was doing good for his family by being a weapons manufacturer.

But let be abundantly clear- just because people can have different opinions of what is right and wrong, doesn't make their opinions correct. There is such thing as good and evil, and opinions on which is which don't actually affect what they are.

Nope, just nope.

Barring religious beliefs to the contrary, human beings are not intellectually uniform - we don't have the same desires nor identical logic. Few people expect a rock to share their moral worldview, but it's easier to imagine a plant would perhaps abhor murder and mutilation. As we approach humanity - perhaps arriving along the way at a conversation with our nearest house-pet we begin to share concepts of individuality and judging individuals for their actions. By the time we're dealing with other human beings we certainly share a wealth of biological instinct driving us to label the same concepts as 'right' or 'wrong', based on our personal projection of the action's consequence on our world - some people's world may revolve around physical pleasure, or social pleasure (various sensory stimuli and brain chemicals that cause us to 'feel'). An individual may lack the biological ability to feel 'wrong' about taking a life or seeing a living being in pain, but still feel bad committing an act society has taught them is 'wrong' - or they may derive enjoyment from it, more complicating still is that there may be a logical reason to take a life or inflict pain, yet instinct (either primal or social) resists.

In short, humans are complicated creatures with far too many variables for us to fully understand or control each other's thought processes, but under normal circumstances we definitely share a vast array of instincts.

Everyone is different

Depending on people's gender, race or religion, ideas of wrong and right may differ between different people. Everyone's views are different based on their family life and morals in life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No, we don't.

We don't. People have different sets of personal values, so you can't expect someone to always agree with you. Our values are affected by factors such as religion and culture. For example: For Christians, being a homosexual is wrong. For them, it's almost the same as killing people--it's a sin. For atheists, though, it is right--genetics.

It depends on the person's background.

Morality comes from our environment and the people that are in it. There are so many different cultures that accept and deny certain topics. Also, we originate from a vast amount of religions that teach us numerous ethics. Even events that have happened in our past can shape those ideas. Since everyone has lived contrasting lives, our beliefs cannot be exactly identical.

No we don't

Because of personal bias, some things might be wrong for some people and some things might be right for them. For example, many people think that Hitler's actions are wrong but his army and the people in Germany probably thought that Hitler's actions are right. When ever you disagree with someone, you are having different ideas of wrong and right.

No we don't

Because of personal bias, some things might be wrong for some people and some things might be right for them. For example, many people think that Hitler's actions are wrong but his army and the people in Germany probably thought that Hitler's actions are right. When ever you disagree with someone, you are having different ideas of wrong and right.

Everyone is different

I do not think we all have the same ideas of wrong and right because we believe in different thing, some of us have different value so we may see things differently than others, humans are emotional animals, every time we feel different, we may make different decision, that's why we might not all have the same idea of right and wrong

Everyone is different

I do not think we all have the same ideas of wrong and right because we believe in different thing, some of us have different value so we may see things differently than others, humans are emotional animals, every time we feel different, we may make different decision, that's why we might not all have the same idea of right and wrong

To some degree.

As an objective answer to the question, no.

However, there are basic principles which we can all agree on, for the most part. A mentally sane person will be able to agree that it's not a good idea to punch someone in the face that you disagree with. Something you can't always agree on are things that are not always instilled by law (in most cases) including religion, economics, marijuana, you name it.

I have another example from pop culture. In the film adaptation of the Dan Brown novel Inferno, the main antagonist Bertrand Zobrist was a radical environmentalist who believed extreme measures were necessary to address the issue of Earth's growing population. His solution was to reduce the human population via an engineered virus that he created. He and his followers believed they were preventing what they viewed as a greater evil: overpopulation.